OM AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
WPMB/1125/2025 · 2026-01-07
Alok Mahra, Ravindra Maithani
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 556 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 556 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:UHC:286-DB 1
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Bench No. 1125 of 2025 7th January, 2026
Om Ayurvedic Medical College ……Petitioner Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others …..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.3. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.4. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondent no.2, namely Uttarakhand Ayurveda University, to declare the result of 43 students studying in the petitioner’s college, i.e., Om Ayurvedic Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Roorkee (the Medical College”).
2.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3.
It is the case of the petitioner that 43 students were admitted in the Medical College pursuant to the interim order dated 13.01.2023 passed in WPMS No. 205 of 2023, Om Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital and Research Centre, Daulatpur vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby the Medical College was permitted to provisionally enroll 43 students in the B.A.M.S. course for the academic session 2021-2022 and further permitted them to appear in
2026:UHC:286-DB 2 their practical and semester examinations. However, the results of these 43 students have not yet been declared by respondent no.3.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first petition was filed only to the extent of seeking permission for admission of the students.
4.
Since the petitioner admits that the admissions were made pursuant to the order dated 13.01.2023 passed in the first petition, the petitioner ought to have moved in the first petition itself for seeking further relief regarding declaration of the results of the students admitted pursuant to the said order. For this reason, the instant petition cannot be entertained.
5.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
6.
No order as to costs.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 07.01.2026
07.01.2026
Mamta